Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 297 posts

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#131

Post by 3pt14159 »

gruez wrote: post #119
3pt14159 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In every part of Canada I've lived in there has been a well developed reuse system. In Ontario, for example, a beer bottle is used around 100 times on average. Reuse should be way better integrated into our systems. If I could bring a resuable bag back to any supermarket to get the $1 fee back, it would be so much easier to justify buying reusable bags that really last a long time. The trouble is I never remember to…

>In Ontario, for example, a beer bottle is used around 100 times on average. fact check: no, only 15 https://www.thestar.com/life/food_wine/2013/06/28/the_averag...

Oh, ok thanks for updating my view. I clearly remember hearing it was 99% but must be either misremembering or the original source was wrong. I'd still rather have re-use via glass or recycling via aluminum than plastic.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#133

Post by detritus »

uuddlrlr wrote: post #129
detritus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly feel that governments should intervene and mandate a limited subset of plastics - including colouration - that can be used for food and beverage packaging, etc. My bottle of sparkling water doesn't really need a green top. The bottle itself doesn't really need to be a light colour tint. Put branding on paper labels, or better yet - go monochrome and laser-etch/mark everything. Have QR codes on bottles that…

I'd rather not be a scan+network request away from knowing which flavour of drink I'm holding.

The QR code would just facilitate all the fancy branding shite beloved of marketing departments. Obviously you'd still have all the essential details marked on the product directly.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#134

Post by TeMPOraL »

horsawlarway wrote: post #61
burkaman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to incentivize recyclable packaging would be to make it illegal for companies to put a symbol on their non-recyclable plastic packaging that 98% of consumers associate with recycling.

Further - I don't understand why we don't just have mandated bottle/jar form factors. We broke the fucking loop by claiming that people could just throw plastic containers away and "somewhere, somehow (over the rainbow!!!) people will recycle them into new goods". That story is bullshit - even for most plastics that can actually be recycled. I want legislation that lays out a set of standardized form factors that are…

I agree with the spirit behind your comment, but:

> The EU estimates those costs for plastic at about 800 EUR ($950) a ton.

This sounds surprisingly little. In this range, making companies paid up front will have negligible impact on their behavior. Rounding up to $1000 / ton of plastic, that'll come out as few cents for most products. E.g. quick Googling suggests that an empty 2L bottle of Coca Cola weighs about 50 grams, making such tax translate to $0.05 extra cost to company/consumer. That's negligible, and well within the range of the usual business shenanigans companies do with prices.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#135

Post by coryrc »

chrisseaton wrote: post #113
conistonwater wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually true? According to [1], McDonalds (in 2020) was buying EUR160e6 worth of Irish beef accounting for 20% of its beef sales across Europe. It would make quite a loss for them if they shipped beef into Ireland while buying that much locally and exporting it. I can't find anything that mentions this "100% Irish beef" theory. [1] https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0323/1124769-corona...

> EUR160e6 Deliberately obtuse way to write €160 million. Why write that like?

Because people near Ireland use an obtuse definition of million/billion. Engineering notation is precise and unambiguous.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#136

Post by JKCalhoun »

bequanna wrote: post #58
JKCalhoun wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Places with cheap energy (e.g,. the Columbia River with hydroelectric power) could inexpensively recycle glass, aluminum. Of course it does take energy to get the recyclables to these places. Curious — are trains no longer efficient?

> Places with cheap energy… I’ve always wondered about colocating manufacturing near cheap power sources. Is this actually possible? Isn’t the power generated already being used? If it is possible, why doesn’t every manufacturing plant just do this to reduce a huge input cost?

Pretty sure aluminum extraction plants do this. As well as Bitcoin miners. ;-)

Recently ... where was I, Eugene, Oregon? There was a shuttered Coca Cola bottling plant. I remember a huge one in Kansas City as well. Maybe someone with expertise can weigh in — but it seems like we used to, as an example, bottle things a lot more locally. It meant factory jobs in the area, transportation (of Coke) was shorter since there was probably a bottling plant in your state (or a neighboring one).

I don't know. I feel a lot was lost.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#138

Post by atatatat »

uuddlrlr wrote: post #129
detritus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly feel that governments should intervene and mandate a limited subset of plastics - including colouration - that can be used for food and beverage packaging, etc. My bottle of sparkling water doesn't really need a green top. The bottle itself doesn't really need to be a light colour tint. Put branding on paper labels, or better yet - go monochrome and laser-etch/mark everything. Have QR codes on bottles that…

I'd rather not be a scan+network request away from knowing which flavour of drink I'm holding.

Lasers can be used to put words into your ears, read your heartrate and listen to your conversations from miles out...

and you're concerned about people knowing your favorite sugar?

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#139

Post by burkaman »

Cd00d wrote: post #127
burkaman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to incentivize recyclable packaging would be to make it illegal for companies to put a symbol on their non-recyclable plastic packaging that 98% of consumers associate with recycling.

Isn't part of the problem though that recycling facilities vary greatly in capability or breadth in the things they can manage, and are necessarily regional? Couple that with the fact that some facilities turn functionality on or off depending on market prices at any given time (esp. with say single use plastic grocery bags). I mean, a #n plastic may be easily recycled with your curbside pickup, but be a processing i…

> Products would be considered recyclable if CalRecycle, the state’s recycling department, determines they have a viable end market and meet certain design criteria, including not using toxic chemicals.

I think that's reasonable. If a particular material is viable for recycling but many facilities can't handle it, CalRecycle can work with them to resolve the issue. They'll probably update the standard every few years, so producers don't need to worry about the rules changing every week as market prices fluctuate.

It's certainly better than allowing companies to slap a recycling symbol on any kind of plastic just because the technology to recycle it exists somewhere in the world.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#140

Post by titzer »

crazygringo wrote: post #87

> For years, the United States also shipped much of its plastic waste overseas, choking local rivers and streams. A global convention now bans most trade in plastic waste Most of this article is fine, but I can't believe this specific misinformation continues to be printed. Exported plastic waste virtually entirely goes into landfills overseas, or is incinerated. Whereas the waste choking local rivers and streams e.g…

> Exported plastic waste virtually entirely goes into landfills overseas, or is incinerated.

You are just hoping this is the case. With absolutely no way to verify this, you are just spreading more misinformation. I can attest from personal experience that many of those countries are hopelessly inept, corrupt, and unable to handle the entire incoming volume. They can't even handle their own "domestically produced"[1] garbage.

The facts are that an estimated 8 million tons of plastic waste enter the oceans every year, with the majority of that waste coming from the exact same countries to which the US exports its plastic waste. There are definitely unscrupulous importers who just dump the crap right back into the ocean.

[1] Of course, most of these countries are not producing their own local plastic. They are actually importing those goods too! We sell them food wrapped in garbage, and pure garbage too. What a deal for them!

Post reply on HN